The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maximei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

Contents

The sixth century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat[1]—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies".[2] It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. It was introduced in Roman criminal law by emperor Antoninus Pius.[3]

Similar to that of Roman law, Islamic law also holds the principle that the onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi.[4] "Suspicion" is also highly condemned, this also from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi[5] as well as Imam Bukhari[6] and Imam Muslim.[7]

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell back on feudal law. This included some Germanic customs, including presumed guilt. The accused could prove his innocence by having, for example, twelve people swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. This tended to favor the nobility over the lower classes."[9]

Sir William Garrow coined the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty", insisting that defendants' accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in court

"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.[19] This is often expressed in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840).[20] Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime.[21]

The presumption of innocence was originally expressed by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine in the phrase "item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens (a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty)", based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[22] However, this referred not merely to the fact that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution in a criminal case, but the protections which a defendant should be given: prior notice of the accusation being made against them, the right of confrontation, right to counsel, etc.[23] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[24] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[22] To ensure this legal protection is maintained, a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:[19]

With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.

With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.

The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"[12] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304).[25] However, there exists a popular misconception that under French law, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.[26]

In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."[27]

In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."

The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".

In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."

In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 provides inter alia at section 25 (c) "Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"[28]

In the United Kingdom changes have been made affecting this principle. Defendants' previous convictions may in certain circumstances be revealed to juries. Although the suspect is not compelled to answer questions after formal arrest, failure to give information may now be prejudicial at trial. Statute law also exists which provides for criminal penalties for failing to decrypt data on request from the police. If the suspect is unwilling to do so, it is an offence.[29] Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence that the encrypted material was unlawful. Furthermore, in sexual offence cases such as rape, where the sexual act has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances where the defendant has an obligation to adduce evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act, or that the defendant reasonably believed that the complainant was consenting. These circumstances include, for example, where the complainant was unconscious, unlawfully detained, or subjected to violence.[30]